RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

WHAT IS A CASE STUDY 255
(providing narrative accounts); explanatory
(testing theories). Exploratory case studies that
act as a pilot can be used to generate hypotheses
that are tested in larger scale surveys, experiments
or other forms of research, e.g. observational.
However, Adelman et al. (1980) caution against
using case studies solely as preliminaries to other
studies, e.g. as pre-experimental or pre-survey;
rather, they argue, case studies exist in their
own right as a significant and legitimate research
method (see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/
9780415368780 – Chapter 11, file 11.3. ppt).
Yin’s (1984) classification accords with Merriam
(1988) who identifies three types: descriptive (narrative
accounts); interpretative (developing conceptual
categories inductively in order to examine
initial assumptions); evaluative (explaining
and judging). Merriam (1988) also categorizes
four common domains or kinds of case study:
ethnographic, historical, psychological and sociological.
Sturman (1999: 107), echoing Stenhouse
(1985), identifies four kinds of case study: an
ethnographic case study – single in-depth study;
action research case study; evaluative case study;
and educational case study. Stake (1994) identifies
three main types of case study: intrinsic case studies
(studies that are undertaken in order to understand
the particular case in question); instrumental case
studies (examining a particular case in order to gain
insight into an issue or a theory); collective case
studies (groups of individual studies that are undertaken
to gain a fuller picture). Because case studies
provide fine-grain detail they can also be used to
complement other, more coarsely grained – often
large-scale – kinds of research. Case study material
in this sense can provide powerful human-scale
data on macro-political decision-making, fusing
theory and practice, for example the work of Ball
(1990), Bowe et al.(1992)andBall(1994a)onthe
impact of government policy on specific schools.
Robson (2002: 181–2) suggests that there are
an individual case study; a set of individual
case studies; a social group study; studies of
organizations and institutions; studies of events,
roles and relationships. All of these, he argues,
find expression in the case study method. Robson
(2002) adds to these the distinction between a
critical case study and an extreme or unique case.
The former, he argues, is
when your theoretical understanding is such that
there is a clear, unambiguous and non-trivial set
of circumstances where predicted outcomes will be
found. Finding a case which fits, and demonstrating
what has been predicted, can give a powerful boost
to knowledge and understanding.
(Robson 2002: 182)
One can add to the critical case study the issue that
the case in question might possess all, or most, of
the characteristics or features that one is investigating,
more fully or distinctly than under ‘normal’
circumstances, for example, a case study of student
disruptive behaviour might go on in a very disruptive
class, with students who are very seriously
disturbed or challenging, rather than going into a
class where the level of disruption is not so marked.
By contrast, Robson (2002: 182) argues that
the extreme and the unique case can provide a
valuable ‘test bed’. Extremes include, he argues,
the situation in which ‘if it can work here it
will work anywhere’, or choosing an ideal set of
circumstances in which to try out a new approach
or project, maybe to gain a fuller insight into how
it operates before taking it to a wider audience
(e.g. the research and development model).
Case studies have several claimed strengths and
weaknesses. These are summarized in Box 11.1
(Adelman et al. 1980) and Box 11.2 (Nisbet
and Watt 1984) (see http://www.routledge.
com/textbooks/9780415368780 – Chapter 11, file
11.4. ppt).
Shaughnessy et al. (2003: 290–9) suggest that
case studies often lack a high degree of control, and
treatments are rarely controlled systematically,
yet they are applied simultaneously, and with
little control over extraneous variables. This,
they argue, renders it difficult to make inferences
to draw cause-and-effect conclusions from case
studies, and there is potential for bias in some
case studies as the therapist is both the participant
and observer and, in that role, may overstate or
understate the case. Case studies, they argue, may
be impressionistic, and self-reporting may be biased
(by the participant or the observer). Further, they
Chapter 11